Register on the new forum and post there while this one is down

Fephisto has brilliantly slapped together a hyperboards forum for us. This forum runs on real forum software and simply works. You can quote, use smilies, and it's never down.

With all due respect to the reddit guys, I don't like the reddit format as it is more geared around one-liners and quick-links than thoughtful debate/discussion. I'm not discouraging anyone from also participating there, I'm just saying I don't think it's an alternative to LvMI forums.

Anyway, my main point is this: Please sign up over at the other forum - it's free, quick and easy - so when this forum is down (it's getting close to about 50% of the time, lately) you have some place to post/read. I plan to just post over there whenever I go to post here and the forum software pukes (I always always Ctl+A/Ctl+C).

Clayton -

As I mentioned, there was talk of reviving the old "old forum"...and that is underway.  This entire forum history can be migrated over there, and there is even a way to migrate the accounts...so that everyone won't have to create a new one.

This one doesn't seem to be down now as much as it was the last day and a half, so if you can hold out for a little longer, you won't have to worry about creating new accounts, as well as you won't have a bunch of new discussions that will get lost in a forum that probably won't grow (as, if this one gets migrated, there'd be no reason for anyone to switch to this one that fephisto just created.)

 

You could always post on both forums.

Autolykos:

You could always post on both forums.

Evidently, you can't...hence "Register on the new forum and post there while this one is down".

And who the hell wants to sit there copy and pasting every single post they make?  And why would anyone try to post a reply to a thread here in a forum where the thread doesn't even exist?  What would be the point of that?  Did you even think before you posted that?

 

Fephisto has done an awesome job -- cudos for that. I'd still like to know if there is a possibility to migrate the content here to a new and better platform/forum, and if anyone is working on it. If not, I'll probably register at the hyperboards forum and start posting more there, too.

It was about time that someone took action and added some urgency to the matter. 

 

It was about time that someone took action and added some urgency to the matter.

+1

I'll beleive it when I see it. LvMI forums has been holding this carrot out on a stick for years now. I'm happy to post at hyperboards while this forum is down, which is plenty. And we'll see if the end of the rainbow is ever reached regarding "migration".

Clayton -

z1235:

I'd still like to know if there is a possibility to migrate the content here to a new and better platform/forum, and if anyone is working on it.

See here.

 

John James:

Evidently, you can't...hence "Register on the new forum and post there while this one is down".

Yeah, I know what the topic says. I don't consider myself obligated to strictly adhere to it.

John James:

And who the hell wants to sit there copy and pasting every single post they make?  And why would anyone try to post a reply to a thread here in a forum where the thread doesn't even exist?  What would be the point of that?  Did you even think before you posted that?

Yes, John, actually I did. I know it might surprise you, but I really don't care. Nor do I feel stupid for posting that, despite your best efforts. Be butthurt all you want - I really couldn't care less. (And yes, I really do think you're butthurt.)

yeah i like the change. much easier to deal with...

Wow, you guys are really inflating my ego, thanks for the support.

So others know, the original thread was here:  http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/29889/477933.aspx#477933

Also, @JJ, if the other forum gets started and people migrate, great!  I'm sure if that happens, then people will naturally leave the hyperboards forum, and I'll just let it sit and fester with the weeds of spam posts for male enhancement products.  But if they don't, then this works too.  Either way, I don't see any issue with having more outlets.  Even now (even though it's only just begun), it seems to be more of a sidelines forum than a replacement.

Autolykos:

Yes, John, actually I did. I know it might surprise you, but I really don't care. Nor do I feel stupid for posting that, despite your best efforts.

Best efforts?  Seriously, this again?  I really thought you had grown out of that.

I can understand if you were bullied as a child and thus have this steadfast resolve to show, well, steadfast resolve...this whole idea that "if you think you're being bullied just stand up to them!  Bullies are just softies with no self confidence!  They'll back down!" that you learned in gradeschool may actually work against actual bullies at times.  The problem is not everyone who challenges you is a bully.  You obviously have a very difficult time accepting this.

You seem to have an ingrained default belief that that's the case, and that anywhere and everywhere your dignity is being threatened, so you must stand up tall and show how you're not backing down.  These constant declarations of how you're "not embarrassed" or "won't be made to feel stupid"...that "I won't feel shamed.  You can't make me!  It's my choice!" scream your insecurity louder than you do.

It's more than obvious that you think simply continuing to respond, even when your posts contain nothing more than "nope!  Not ashamed!" is somehow a show of willpower, and that you think somehow this will shock your opponent into submission, but what you fail to realize is everyone is not a bully out to get you or make you feel stupid...and your reactions as if they were ironically do more to show your true insecurity than if you didn't put on this spectacle.

You're almost 30 years old.  Isn't it about time to grow up?

 

Be butthurt all you want - I really couldn't care less. (And yes, I really do think you're butthurt.)

I honestly don't even know what that means.

 

Cool beans, Clayton

I'm in Fephisto - great idea

If you thought I'd just lay down after your latest response, John, you were wrong.

John James:

Best efforts?  Seriously, this again?  I really thought you had grown out of that [sic].

So first you strongly imply that I was stupid for pointing out that there's nothing stopping a person from posting on both forums. That's really the only way I can see to take your earlier response. Now you strongly imply that it's immature of me to stand up to you. In neither case do I agree with your judgement. I think you're used to bullying - yes, bullying - people into agreeing with you or at least acquiescing to you before too long, which is why my steadfast refusal to agree with your judgement is apparently so frustrating to you. Oh well.

John James:

I can understand if you were bullied as a child and thus have this steadfast resolve to show, well, steadfast resolve...this whole idea that "if you think you're being bullied just stand up to them!  Bullies are just softies with no self confidence!  They'll back down!" that you learned in gradeschool may actually work against actual bullies at times.  The problem is not everyone who challenges you is a bully.  You obviously have a very difficult time accepting this [sic].

"Obviously", eh? The funny thing to me is that I've never had a problem accepting the notion that not everyone who challenges me is a bully. You don't have to believe me - I know it for myself. With that said, John, I think you bully people a lot. For example, what other meaning could be inferred from your tone in this post other than it's a more sophisticated way of saying "OMG SHUT UP! YOU ARE SOOOOO STUPID!!!"? Certainly I can't see the last sentence of that post - "Did you even think before you posted that?" - being included for any other other reason. If you have an alternative interpretation, I'd really love to hear it.

John James:

You seem to have an ingrained default belief that that's the case, and that anywhere and everywhere [sic] your dignity is being threatened, so you must stand up tall and show how you're not backing down.  These constant [sic] declarations of how you're "not embarrassed" or "won't be made to feel stupid"...that "I won't feel shamed.  You can't make me!  It's my choice!" scream your insecurity [sic] louder than you do.

Most of my responses to you, John, involve that, because I see you as being a bully a lot of the time. Simply berating others for what they've said doesn't promote intellectual discourse IMHO. You post many informative links and videos, which I and others definitely appreciate. But I think your helpfulness is marred, if not overshadowed, by your bullying and otherwise dickish behavior much of the rest of the time. Tell me, how does saying something like "Did you even think before you posted that?" carry any other meaningful assertion other than that the addressee is stupid (at least for having posted what he did) and therefore should believe it for himself?

As I think I've said before, in order for an insult to actually work, the target must feel insulted. I don't. My point with saying things like "I don't feel stupid", "I don't feel ashamed", etc. is to inform you (or whoever's making the contrary assertion(s)) that your efforts have been in vain. Certainly I see the larger point of insulting someone to be for the target of the (attempted) insult to back down, which he presumably would do if he indeed came to feel inferior in some way with respect to the person who insulted him. Do you see me backing down, John? No? Then either your efforts have (once again) failed or I'm wrong about your intentions. In the latter case, since you apparently refuse to explain what your real intentions are, I see no reason to abandon the conclusions I've made based on the evidence I have.

Regardless, I'd love to hear just what you think I'm insecure about.

John James:

It's more than obvious that you think simply continuing to respond, even when your posts contain nothing more than "nope!  Not ashamed!" is somehow a show of willpower, and that you think somehow this will shock your opponent into submission, but what you fail to realize is everyone [sic] is not a bully out to get you or make you feel stupid...and your reactions as if they were ironically do more to show your true insecurity [sic] than if you didn't put on this spectacle [sic].

As I said above, it's not about shocking my opponent into submission. What is there for him to submit to me about? And once again, I hardly think that everyone is a bully out to get me or make me feel stupid. You're hardly everyone, John. You don't have to believe me here, and I don't care if you don't, but I've at least noted that for the record. Let me go ahead and also assert that I think your latest response in this thread is simply a redoubling of your efforts to shut me up when you don't like what I have to say. Finally, you bring up that my behavior shows my "true insecurity" - just what would that be, in your view?

John James:

You're almost 30 years old.  Isn't it about time to grow up [sic]?

Heh, I guess this meant to be the kicker for your overall effort to shut me up. "Growing up" to you apparently includes no longer responding the way I do when I think you're being a bully. That's nice. Thanks for sharing. But I really couldn't care less. I'm curious though - what kind of response to your earlier post would you consider to be "mature"? Maybe something like, "Gee, John, you're right, I was being really stupid there, and I shouldn't have said that. I don't know what I was thinking"? In other words, a response that agrees with you and indicates a "recognition" of your "superiority"? If that's the case, then as you're fond of saying, you should see my big surprised face.

John James:

I honestly don't even know what that means.

Suuuuure you don't.

Can someone explain to me why this thread is being treated as a place for petty personal disputes? It's a little bit irritating reading/skipping over this stuff to find something relevant to the topic. And I suspect that this is happening more frequently as well.

jordan161:

Can someone explain to me why this thread is being treated as a place for petty personal disputes? It's a little bit irritating reading/skipping over this stuff to find something relevant to the topic. And I suspect that this is happening more frequently as well.

Sure.  Actually you're quite in luck to be wondering this in this particular thread, as if offers a nice overview of the situation.  As you can see (particularly evidenced in the link provided) the user with the distraught Captian Picard as his avatar has an issue with self esteem which not only makes him feel under constant attack, but which also enduces a constant need to put on a show of resolve, and (literally) proclaim he will not be made to feel shamed/stupid/bullied or whatever other term suits him at the time. 

He is under the impression that this somehow makes him appear strong, and that whoever he feels threatened by will simply not know how to respond to his "astounding" display of "willpower".  Because "bullies" are just softies who only deal with perpetual victim-types who don't "stand up to them", so they have no concept of how to deal with someone who doesn't run away.  This is why he will never leave a thread where he feels like someone else got the last word.  He will continue posting long after any actual point of discussion has been lost, if to say nothing else than "nope!  Still here!  And still not ashamed!  Now what?" 

This is because he was taught somewhere along the line that if you think you're being bullied, you simply show everyone that you're not afraid, and the "bully" will backdown.  So he makes sure to respond to every single possible post that could possibly be construed as a challenge to him because he can't risk showing the slightest weakness, thus letting any "bully" "win."

See he believes that by not responding he ends up appearing to have been "shamed" into submission/ silence, and because of his ingrained need to stand up to "bullies", he simply has to respond.  He can't not respond.  Not just for his own sake, but also because along with this delusion of being constantly victimized (or, I suppose he'd rather me not use that term, as I'm sure we'll probably get a lecture about how he can't be made to be a victim if he doesn't want to be, it's his choice, and you can't make him a victim because he won't let you blah blah blah)...

But in any case, along with this delusion he has also ingrained a guardian complex, in which he is able to make himself feel useful and important by believing he is an advocate for anyone who would-be bullied and simply doesn't have his same strength so as not to be victimized.  See by "standing up to bullies" he serves to not only protect the meek by confusing/ shocking/ shaming the "bullies" into submission with his astounding fearlessness, but he provides them with a role model, showing them what they can achieve, if only they follow his example of always making sure you reply in an Internet forum, and never let any possible direct (or even indirect) post go unaddressed.

If you're still not clear, don't worry.  A perfect example of this will be made available soon enough...

 

JJ,

Too far.

Sounds like something I would write about the bitcoin crowd.

Jus call em like ah see em!

 

Then again, you could be wrong. **scratches head**

We could also all be the figment of a unicorn's imagination...but I doubt it.

 

jordan161:

Can someone explain to me why this thread is being treated as a place for petty personal disputes? It's a little bit irritating reading/skipping over this stuff to find something relevant to the topic. And I suspect that this is happening more frequently as well.

As I see it, JJ acts like a douchebag, if not an outright bully, much of the time (see here for an example) - and when he does, I choose to call him out on his BS. I've made a thread about him in Member Issues, but it's been to no avail. (Yes, there also happens to be a thread about me in Member Issues, which I'm sure JJ wouldn't fail to point out if I didn't beat him to it first.) I maintain that JJ continues to "up the ante" with because he expects me to fold at some point. But I don't believe I will.

John James:

He is under the impression that this somehow makes him appear strong, and that whoever he feels threatened by will simply not know how to respond to his "astounding" display of "willpower". [...]he will never leave a thread where he feels like someone else got the last word.  He will continue posting [...]

A perfect example of this will be made available soon enough...

Autolykos:

I maintain that JJ continues to "up the ante" with

because he expects me to fold at some point. But I don't believe I will.

 

John James:

Sure.  Actually you're quite in luck to be wondering this in this particular thread, as if offers a nice overview of the situation.  As you can see (particularly evidenced in the link provided) the user with the distraught [sic] Captian Picard as his avatar has an issue with self esteem [sic] which not only makes him feel under constant attack [sic], but which also enduces a constant need to put on a show of resolve [sic], and (literally) proclaim he will not be made to feel shamed/stupid/bullied or whatever other term suits him at the time.

JJ here is still clinging to the fallacious notion that I feel under constant attack. That's simply not true. But I imagine it's in his interest to paint this as a general issue with me, rather than a specific issue regarding him, since doing that could help focus attention on me instead of him.

I have no problem with saying that I stand up to people who I think are being bullies. By "stand up" I include calling them out on their behavior - publicly denouncing them, if you will.

John James:

He is under the impression that this somehow makes him appear strong [sic], and that whoever he feels threatened by will simply not know how to respond to his "astounding" display of "willpower" [sic].  Because "bullies" are just softies who only deal with perpetual victim-types who don't "stand up to them" [sic], so they have no concept of how to deal with someone who doesn't run away [sic].  This is why he will never leave a thread where he feels like someone else got the last word [sic].  He will continue posting long after any actual point of discussion has been lost [sic], if to say nothing else than "nope!  Still here!  And still not ashamed!  Now what?"

I think JJ is used to having his way with other people. All he has to do (typically) is berate someone for how stupid he's been, and the other person will "see the light" pretty quickly. I don't think he's used to dealing with someone like me, but I could be wrong. However, I never said that - and I don't believe - that all bullies are just "softies" who don't deal with people who stand up to them. I'm sure that many bullies - maybe even most - become enraged at being stood up to, as that's a direct challenge to their perceptions of powerfulness about themselves. JJ could very well fall into this category. That's fine. He can "up the ante" all he wants. I don't think it'll do him any good with me.

On the other hand, I could say much the same about JJ with the last two sentences he writes above. You'll note that JJ continues to respond to me and certainly continues posting long after any actual point of discussion has been lost. So at the very least, this is an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

John James:

This is because he was taught somewhere along the line [sic] that if you think you're being bullied, you simply show everyone that you're not afraid, and the "bully" will backdown.  So he makes sure to respond to every single possible post that could possibly be construed as a challenge to him [sic] because he can't risk showing the slightest weakness, thus letting any "bully" "win."

I don't believe for a minute that a bully will necessarily back down just because his target shows everyone that he's not afraid. The bully might "up the ante" - in other words, he thinks his target's bluffing and he's decided to call his bluff. But what if his target isn't bluffing? What if his target really isn't afraid? What if the bully really can't manipulate his target into submitting? Perhaps the bully will end up shifting the goalposts in a desperate attempt to maintain the perception that he's superior or at least more powerful. For example, a relatively sophisticated bully might start using reverse psychology in an effort to give the impression that he really is in control of his target.

John James:

See he believes that by not responding he ends up appearing to have been "shamed" into submission/ silence, and because of his ingrained need to stand up to "bullies", he simply has to respond [sic].  He can't not respond [sic].  Not just for his own sake, but also because along with this delusion of being constantly victimized [sic] (or, I suppose he'd rather me not use that term, as I'm sure we'll probably get a lecture about how he can't be made to be a victim if he doesn't want to be, it's his choice, and you can't make him a victim because he won't let you blah blah blah)...

And here's the reverse psychology. I think JJ could be trying to make others believe that he somehow has control over me. He doesn't. I choose to respond. Whether I make that choice consistently in no way obviates the fact that it's still a choice that I make. He's not making me respond, although he might want people to believe otherwise at this point.

John James:

But in any case, along with this delusion [sic] he has also ingrained a guardian complex [sic], in which he is able to make himself feel useful and important [sic] by believing he is an advocate for anyone who would-be bullied and simply doesn't have his same strength so as not to be victimized [sic].  See by "standing up to bullies" he serves to not only protect the meek by confusing/ shocking/ shaming the "bullies" into submission with his astounding fearlessness [sic], but he provides them with a role model [sic], showing them what they can achieve, if only they follow his example of always making sure you reply in an Internet forum, and never let any possible direct (or even indirect) post go unaddressed [sic].

I maintain that JJ's ultimate goal here is for me to shut up. He can mock my accusations of him all he wants to. It won't make any difference. But it's interesting to me that JJ, like many/most bullies, apparently feels entitled to bully others, and that therefore any challenge to his bullying is illegitimate. Oh well. I simply don't restrict my challenging him to when he bullies me. He doesn't have to like it, and it doesn't matter to me whether he does.

Please note that, in my last post, I did commend JJ for the many links and videos he provides. I haven't accused him of only ever engaging in bullying. I try to be accurate in my criticisms rather than engage in rhetorical strawman tactics. But no, I don't appreciate him harshly berating (if not bullying) others, I don't think it's consistent with forum policy, I don't think it should be allowed, and if the forum administration is going to turn a blind eye to this, then I'll be happy to step in to the extent that I feel able.

John James:

If you're still not clear, don't worry.  A perfect example of this will be made available soon enough...

I'd like people to evaluate my posts (as well as JJ's) on their own merits.

EDIT- POST REMOVED BY MOD PHYSIOCRAT

JJ, that is clearly unconstructive in the extreme. Stop it.

JJ and Autolykos.

Calm down and cut it out.

I haven't read all your posts this time but please respond to threads and posts in good faith; please do not derail them.

If you really have a problem with content posted by any member PM me as I frankly had forgotten about the existence of member issues and it's easier deal with this way.

Mon. 12/07/09 09:33 EDT
.post #214

John James:

But in any case, along with this delusion he has also ingrained a guardian complex, etc.

What a load of psychobabble. I nominate "Dr." John James for the position of "resident psychoanalyst."



Psychoanalysis as a Weapon

Blaming radicals for their own persecution is akin to another reversal tactic frequently practiced by Freud. Thus, in one of my favorite works of Tom Szasz - the unfortunately neglected Karl Kraus and the Soul Doctors - Szasz writes of Freud's response when one of his entourage, Fritz Wittels, delivered a psychoanalytic "character assassination" (as Szasz correctly calls it) of Freud's brilliant critic, Karl Kraus. Freud's reaction was that "we have reason to be grateful to Wittels for making so many sacrifices." On which Szasz comments:

This is one of Freud's characteristic verbal tricks, which he often applied to his own attacks on others as well; it is not Kraus who was sacrificed by Wittels, but Wittels who has sacrificed himself! It is a good tactic if one can get away with it, and, by and large, Freud got away with it.[7]

See also:

Szasz on Freud

Physiocrat:

If you really have a problem with content posted by any member PM me as I frankly had forgotten about the existence of member issues and it's easier deal with this way.

I would be happy to do so, but it seems you need to be in my "friends list" before I can PM you.

Mon. 12/07/09 09:49 EDT
.post #215

Autolykos:

I would be happy to do so, ...

Is this necessary? Seems to me you're doing a perfectly good job of handling the situation yourself.

 

Edit:

Autolykos:

I'd like people to evaluate my posts (as well as JJ's) on their own merits.

Well said! So would I.

But now one of JJ's posts has been deleted, so I can no longer do that.

Careful what you ask for!

MMMark:

Is this necessary? Seems to me you're doing a perfectly good job of handling the situation yourself.

Thanks, but I think it is necessary at this point, as Physiocrat has told JJ and me to stop responding to each other in this thread.

Mon. 12/07/09 10:21 EDT
.post #216

Autolykos:

Thanks, but I think it is necessary at this point, as Physiocrat has told JJ and me to stop responding to each other in this thread.

That's a real drag, in my opinion.

The deletion of John's post precludes the possibility of ever "evaluating it on its own merits," to quote a wise man.

Also, consider the quote from your sig:
"The keyboard is mightier than the gun."

Now, I'm not equating post-deletion with gun-pointing, but it's definitely a use of "the keyboard" which runs directly counter to the sentiment your quote expresses.

I'm not blaming you. I'm just suggesting that we "kiddies" shouldn't be so quick to "run to the authorities."

And, in John's defense, and in defense of honest discussion (even when it gets nasty), I hope you'll join me in asking the moderator to please restore John's deleted post.

If you really have a problem with content posted by any member PM me as I frankly had forgotten about the existence of member issues and it's easier deal with this way.

LOL, our mods are really something. First they make a member's issue group and then they forget about it.

I would be happy to do so, but it seems you need to be in my "friends list" before I can PM you.

Plus they have to have PMs enabled. I remember when I friend-listed someone to PM them, only to discover I still couldn't.

Marko,

Since it seems that only the Muff and I are still around here on a semi-regular basis I just suggested PMing me in case of a problem. I don't have the time I used to and since the forum keeps creaking Pming seemed reasonable.

MMMark:

I'm not blaming you. I'm just suggesting that we "kiddies" shouldn't be so quick to "run to the authorities."

Physiocrat's request of JJ and myself is backed by his authority as a moderator of this forum. That is, he has the authority to do things against us like remove our posts and suspend/ban our accounts. The implication of his request for us to stop arguing was that, should we continue, he'll bring sanctions against us. I'd prefer not to be on the receiving end of such sanctions, so I've chosen to stop arguing.

MMMark:

And, in John's defense, and in defense of honest discussion (even when it gets nasty), I hope you'll join me in asking the moderator to please restore John's deleted post.

I'm sorry but I won't join you there. I agree with Physiocrat's rationale for deleting it.

Mon. 12/07/09 11:32 EDT
.post #217

Autolykos:

I'd prefer not to be on the receiving end of such sanctions, so I've chosen to stop arguing.

Again, very well said. Your (very reasonable) response illustrates perfectly what I meant by "in defense of honest discussion." Now, instead of honestly expressing yourself, you hold back. John James isn't even granted the privilege of doing that, since his post has been deleted, which also precludes the opportunity for everyone else to "evaluate it on its own merits."

And how can I now evaluate your writing "on its own merits," now that your choice of words is influenced by your desire to avoid sanctions?

You see what I mean? Moderation, either actual or threatened, poisons the possibility of honest discussion.

Autolykos:

I'm sorry but I won't join you there.I agree with Physiocrat's rationale for deleting it.

I hope you'll consider retracting what you've just said here, and also joining me in my request. Let me resort, once again, to "the keyboard."

I'm both able and willing to make up my own mind, based on the merits of one's argument. Now, I didn't read John's (now deleted) post, but I assume it was something that was quite blatantly rude.

Do you think that such a post hurts you, or hurts my estimation of you?

Not in the least! In fact, such a post tells me nothing whatsoever about you. What it does tell me is something about John James. Why should you, or I, or anyone, object if John wants to show everybody, by his behavior, how rude he can be? That just helps me get to know him a bit better, that's all.

But, there is a larger issue at stake here.

What is the essence of libertarianism? To me, it is the plea for persuasion over aggression as a means of influencing people.

If we had the power to just snap our fingers and silence all the statists in the world, would finger-snapping pave the royal road to the society we're striving for?

You know it wouldn't. Even if it would, we'd all be hypocrites for justifying the end with those means. If we really believe in the power of persuasion, we must walk our talk. It's not easy, but we don't choose those means because they are easy; we choose them because they are consistent with our principles. We choose them because they are right.

This is a forum. The idea of a forum, in the broadest sense, is a place where people come to practice the civilized method of influencing others, i.e., the use of rhetoric and argumentation. Please note that "civilized" does not (necessarily) imply "polite" or "honest." What it does imply is both the absence of coercion, and also the willingness to "evaluate the words of others on their own merits." And that implies that we grant to the participants of a forum, even the rude ones, the ability both to write their words honestly, and also to read them.

I submit that moderation is antithetical to this process, and I call on you once again, as one libertarian to another, to join me in asking the moderator to please restore John James's deleted post.

MMMark:

Again, very well said. Your (very reasonable) response illustrates perfectly what I meant by "in defense of honest discussion." Now, instead of honestly expressing yourself, you hold back. John James isn't even granted the privilege of doing that, since his post has been deleted, which also precludes the opportunity for everyone else to "evaluate it on its own merits."

And how can I now evaluate your writing "on its own merits," now that your choice of words is influenced by your desire to avoid sanctions?

You see what I mean? Moderation, either actual or threatened, poisons the possibility of honest discussion.

With all due respect, I don't see how I'm being dishonest simply because I've chosen to respect Physiocrat's request. Furthermore, my choice of words is always influenced by one or more desires.

MMMark:

I hope you'll consider retracting what you've just said here, and also joining me in my request. Let me resort, once again, to "the keyboard."

I'm both able and willing to make up my own mind, based on the merits of one's argument. Now, I didn't read John's (now deleted) post, but I assume it was something that was quite blatantly rude.

Do you think that such a post hurts you, or hurts my estimation of you?

Not in the least! In fact, such a post tells me nothing whatsoever about you. What it does tell me is something about John James. Why should you, or I, or anyone, object if John wants to show everybody, by his behavior, how rude he can be? That just helps me get to know him a bit better, that's all.

But, there is a larger issue at stake here.

What is the essence of libertarianism? To me, it is the plea for persuasion over aggression as a means of influencing people.

If we had the power to just snap our fingers and silence all the statists in the world, would finger-snapping pave the royal road to the society we're striving for?

You know it wouldn't. Even if it would, we'd all be hypocrites for justifying the end with those means. If we really believe in the power of persuasion, we must walk our talk. It's not easy, but we don't choose those means because they are easy; we choose them because they are consistent with our principles. We choose them because they are right.

This is a forum. The idea of a forum, in the broadest sense, is a place where people come to practice the civilized method of influencing others, i.e., the use of rhetoric and argumentation. Please note that "civilized" does not (necessarily) imply "polite" or "honest." What it does imply is both the absence of coercion, and also the willingness to "evaluate the words of others on their own merits." And that implies that we grant to the participants of a forum, even the rude ones, the ability both to write their words honestly, and also to read them.

I submit that moderation is antithetical to this process, and I call on you once again, as one libertarian to another, to join me in asking the moderator to please restore John James's deleted post.

Again with all due respect, I still won't join you there. This forum is private property, and its owners have reserved the right to modify and/or remove any of its content that they wish. As agents of the forum's owners, the administrators and moderators are endowed with the same authority. We, as "mere" users, do not gain any stake of ownership in the forum by posting or otherwise interacting in it. I, for one, consider the reservation of rights by the forum's owners and their agents to be legitimate, at least in principle.

John James:

We could also all be the figment of a unicorn's imagination...but I doubt it.

 

You'll make the comment above, but you won't answer my question here? I must ask, are trolling?

Mon. 12/07/09 15:55 EDT
.post #218

Autolykos:

With all due respect, I don't see how I'm being dishonest simply because I've chosen to respect Physiocrat's request. Furthermore, my choice of words is always influenced by one or more desires.

All right, then consider this example:

A mother tells her little boy that, unless he apologizes for hitting his sister, he'll have to stay home with the grandparents while the rest of the family goes to the amusement park for the day.

Influenced by his desire to attend the amusement park with the rest of the family, the boy chooses to respect his mother's request, and apologizes.

Questions:
Is the boy's apology honest, or dishonest?
Does he really mean it?
Does his sister believe that he really means it?

Autolykos:

Again with all due respect, I still won't join you there. This forum is private property, and its owners have reserved the right to modify and/or remove any of its content that they wish. As agents of the forum's owners, the administrators and moderators are endowed with the same authority. We, as "mere" users, do not gain any stake of ownership in the forum by posting or otherwise interacting in it. I, for one, consider the reservation of rights by the forum's owners and their agents to be legitimate, at least in principle.

I agree with everything you've said here, but I'm contesting neither the moderators' authority nor their right to delete posts. I fully acknowledge as legitimate their authority and their right to control their property.

Fortunately, asking a moderator to replace a deleted post (or asking him to delete the post in the first place) does not constitute disrespect of his property rights. This is not a property rights issue.


Try this:

You already have the authority to ignore posts, and limited permission to respond to them. Suppose you also had the authority and the ability to delete posts which you deemed "clearly unconstructive in the extreme" (Physiocrat's rationale, with which you agree). Would you have deleted JJ's post?

If "no," then why do you in one case (my hypothetical) prefer JJ's post to remain, and in another case (the reality) prefer that it be deleted, when the "rationale for deleting it" is, in both cases, identical?

 

Edit:

Or, try this:

Suppose Physiocrat's rationale for deleting JJ's post had been:

"JJ, your avatar really pisses me off, so I chose to randomly delete one of your posts."

Given this rationale, would you join me in asking Physiocrat to restore JJ's deleted post?

Not to interrupt the lively debate going on here but I noticed that the forums have been up most of the time since Fephisto created his alternative board.

Clayton -

It's weird getting that CloudFlare "offline" message. I thought CloudFare was suppose to cache a version of the site to serve requests when the actual server is down.

 

The problems only seem to have gotten worse since they started using CloudFlare. I have only once or twice seen CF fetch a cached copy of the forums. When the main site goes down, however, it usually seems to work alright.

Clayton -